Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by chips, Feb 23, 2006.
gimme some feed back please.
both give different impressions. i feel like the 2nd gives the impression that there is a wealth of information on the website while the 1st offers simplicity and straightforwardness.
i guess use that to determine which one you are trying to achieve
well i did the 1st and some one else did the 2nd the bigest issue with the 1st was the content.. I was given very little info.. or picutres to put up
Anymore feed back?
I like the second, but I don't like the big introduction type images on both. You click on one link, and the whole layout changes. No intro pages!
Just for reference, this is what the search engines see when they look at you pages:
and the second:
(roughly what the search engines see)
The SE's will ignore the keywords in your meta tag. SE's, by and large, ignore all meta nowadays.
Off hand, I would say:
I like the "look" of the first page more, but it's easier to understand what the site is about from the second.
Also: the second version, the links fall "below the fold" on lower resolution screens, and even on a 1024x768 screen if the browser has a full set of buttons showing. That'll loose you a lot of traffic.
The second page has all the copy text embedded in the image. This is a bad idea that graphic artists love. Text should be text, not an image of text. SE's can't read images of text.
Take the first one, add a bit of descriptive copy below the image, for both the casual surfer and the SE's to read, and call it a day.
IMHO, of course.